Standard Content and Improvements Needed

It was great to get standard content at the start of the year, this has been a feature I have been long looking forward to. It certainly has some nice bits included with the auto snapping of mates and the stacking of washer which both work beautifully. However, as I try using the standard content there are a lot of area's that are letting it down and I'd be keen for some discussion before raising improvement request to see if others have similar issues and I am not missing something. Here are some of my problem areas in no particular order.

1 No support for openBOM which makes it almost unusable for me at the moment as this is my option for BOM's and I don't really want to change that workflow. I know @oleg_shilovitsky is working on this.

3 Lots of parts still missing. Is there somewhere we can request for parts and standards to be added?

4 Can we open it up to have the community build parts and be submitted to QA checks for adding to the Onshape library? This could fast-track content and get an expansive library.

5 It's great being able to add the Part Number and Descriptions for your company but I would like to see a table of what part numbers are where for my company and add in detail on a table rather than navigating the menus.

6 Option to add special bolt length, I couldn't find M16 x 270mm which I required for a project. Bolts should be able to be spec'd to custom length.

7 Head Markings. I really miss seeing head marks, this is really, really handy when modeled in and can stop stuff up's, as it jumps out that you have spec'd the wrong bolts when spinning and inspecting the model.

8 Thread Lenth, I understand that threads should be included but I'd like to see some form indication of thread length, even just a split face or a way to turn on threads to make sure bolts will tighten, once again to stop stuff ups with wrong bolt spec's.

9 Replacing hardware, I'd like to be able to get further back in the menu's when replacing hardware, at the moment it only seems to go back 1 level, I want it to the point of replacing metric for imperial and not having to redo the mates.

Comments

It can really slow you down if you have to wade through a bunch of standards trying to find what you want. Most of the time I don't really care (or know) what the specific standard is, and all I want is to do is add an M5x30mm Socket Head Screw and an M5 Nylon Locking Nut with an option for the Grade of bolt.

I agree, it would also be nice to have an easy way to select from a company parts list of hardware as well. Perhaps something like the way the company materials library works. In the insert dialog, you would select "Standard Content", and then have an option for viewing all the parts or just the company parts.

>>>* No support for openBOM which makes it almost unusable for me at the moment as this is my option for BOM's and I don't really want to change that workflow. I know @oleg_shilovitsky is working on this.>>>

Appreciate you mentioning OpenBOM is working on it. We made it OpenBOM partially compliant to support standard content.

Here is the link with updates, documentations and videos explaining what is supported and what is still not supported.

I was modeling something last week and decided to model the fasteners just to see how they worked; I was trying to insert M3x6 flat socket cap screws into a countersunk clearance hole modeled with the OS hole feature.

1. Related [email protected]'s point: 6mm was not an available length, and that doesn't even seem an unusual size to me. According to McMaster, most of their metric fasteners meet DIN specs rather than ISO ones. And with a third (or more) options, searching by standard would rapidly get confusing.2. The mate connector is at the base of the conical surface, which meant that since the modeled hole was a clearance hole, I couldn't mate the standard parts so that they were flush. Seems like the mate connector on flat head fasteners should be at the flat face so you can mate to the circle at the top of the countersink.

2. The mate connector is at the base of the conical surface, which meant that since the modeled hole was a clearance hole, I couldn't mate the standard parts so that they were flush. Seems like the mate connector on flat head fasteners should be at the flat face so you can mate to the circle at the top of the countersink.

When machining parts, is it standard practice to countersink a bit deep so that the heads of the flat-head screws are slightly indented below the surface of the part? I usually do that myself to avoid the situation where the head protrudes slightly from the surface. I hate catching or scratching a finger tip on a protruded head.

I was modeling something last week and decided to model the fasteners just to see how they worked; I was trying to insert M3x6 flat socket cap screws into a countersunk clearance hole modeled with the OS hole feature.

1. Related [email protected]'s point: 6mm was not an available length, and that doesn't even seem an unusual size to me. According to McMaster, most of their metric fasteners meet DIN specs rather than ISO ones. And with a third (or more) options, searching by standard would rapidly get confusing.2. The mate connector is at the base of the conical surface, which meant that since the modeled hole was a clearance hole, I couldn't mate the standard parts so that they were flush. Seems like the mate connector on flat head fasteners should be at the flat face so you can mate to the circle at the top of the countersink.

@lemon1324, I haven't played with the standard parts yet, but what you're noticing as an error is actually how it should be. The conical surfaces are what decide where the countersunk screw is positioned. As @michael3424 noted, countersinks are often machined larger in order to ensure the screw heads are slightly subsurface. Artificially making the screw head flush can easily lead to mistakes when assuming your fasteners won't interfere with a mated surface. So the best way to mate flathead screws is to make the conical surfaces concident. Assuming you've picked the same angle as your hole (82deg vs 100deg), having the mate connectors at the point of the conical surface achieves this.

@mahir, I wasn't able to find a way to actually select the conical face and mate the fastener coincident to that. Maybe I'm just not using it right? And rather than forcing it flush it's the opposite, actually; the mate connector isn't at the point of the cone, it's at the base of the actual head of the fastener: Which means that when mated to the corresponding circle in the hole (I found that selecting the conical surface as the mate point didn't consistently pick the correct mate connector), the fastener actually sits proud by the amount that the hole is a clearance hole:which, I grant, is a very small offset, but still doesn't correspond to the actual physical location of the as-assembled fastener.

@lemon1324, I see. Yeah, that doesn't look right. You can use a manual offset since you can choose the location of the mate connector along the cone surface's rotational axis. Alternatively, place a sketch with an endpoint at the cone apex that youc an use for mate connectors.

Mating countersunk screw is definitely a problem. When I have mated these in the past I have used the top face of the screw to the top of the conical hole then added an offset to move the screw into the hole, it is not easy to get the perfect position.

I am back using standard content today and am still finding the interface hard to use. Maybe it just me but I still think there is heaps of room for improvement in this space. I might be better to start making some improvement request and see if other votes.

I've gone back to using my own personal fastener library until further improvements are made. I found that adding a "standard" description without size and length showing up in the description is pretty useless. Also the range of metric fasteners is very limited.

@chrisjh777 I think your right about using your own library until the standard fasteners are improved. I have been trying to use them today but not enjoying the experience. It's a bit more work up front to do your own library but that's what I might for a while longer. Getting a description of the part names is a big deal otherwise your completely lost to what the fastener is what.

@brucebartlettHi Bruce, You are welcome to use my public list of fasteners in OS. The range is all metric from M1.4 to M16 (not every size is available). If I need a new size, I simply use the Move Face command to alter a length and make it a new part with appropriate diameter and length description.

The original list of fasteners I imported from my Solidworks accumulated collection of many years. Most of my work involves smaller electronics, hence the range only up to M16.

The fasteners are arranged by diameter size tabs, and I find it very quick and easy to find a fastener (from "Other Documents") and insert it into an assembly. Onshape's linking to the fasteners works very well.

Thanks, @chrisjh777 I'll take a look. I am really frustrated I can't get standard content working to an acceptable standard as I have been looking forward to it for a long time now, I waste so much time at the end of a project on this detail and desperately want it to work, but there are just too many holes in it at the moment to be useful.

How is everyone handling the part numbers for standard content? Do you use vendor part numbers? your own internal part numbering scheme?

Personally I would love to see Onshape add an autogenerated part numbering scheme in the release management section specific to standard content. It makes more sense to tie a dummy part number to vendor specific part numbers in ERP. Then if the vendor part number or vendor ever needs to change the CAD model can be left as is.

I also completely agree that a table of some sort is needed in the company setting to manage the standard content and populate all of the necessary fields. It would also ideally allow the company to select a sub set of the standard content to use. This may help with searching through it to find what you are looking for.

Lastly, completely agree on the lack of descriptions for the standard content. Makes the instance tree a complete mess in an assembly because I have no idea what is what.

I'd encourage you to use OpenBOM Part Catalogs. In such case you can centralize all information about parts you use (standard content and all other parts) in a single place. Autogenerated PN are supported. You can tie Part Catalog record to BOM created from Onshape and by doing it you insure that data is persistent in catalogs. Also Part Catalogs can be linked to ERP and different cloud storages.

@michael_bromleyWe use our own internal part numbers for everything, include nuts, bolts, bearings, etc.I would like to see better descriptions as well. It should at least have the size of the hardware included. Also would like to see longer bolts included, as we use a few that are beyond what the standard content provides.